By continuing your visit to this site, you accept the use of cookies. These ensure the smooth running of our services. Learn more.


Banks: management irresponsibility

In the context of the financial crisis and of errors in management and governance that are the root causes of the current situation, European bankers explain that despite collateral troubles due to what is going on in the USA everything is fine in Europe because of the PRO-CE-DU-RES.

Let’s have a look on what Daniel Bouton, Chairman of the Board, Société Générale, stated six years ago:

"one of the key issues revolves around off-balance-sheet commitments and the company's risk exposure. Off-balance-sheet items can include a large number of commitments given and received, and are often highly varied, ranging from financial commitments to payroll-related matters to sales relationships. The content of offbalance-sheet items also varies according to the accounting standards used. This situation
has sometimes caused insufficient attention to be paid to the commitments and risks resulting from liabilities not recognized in the balance sheet for various reasons, or even to a view that off-balance-sheet items constitute a kind of "regulation-free zone" beyond the reach of valuation and disclosure rules.
A company's first obligation in this area is and remains the true and fair application of two core accounting principles: prudence and the primacy of substance over form. Once that is established, the two main objectives should be a careful valuation of off-balance-sheet commitments and of the risks they generate, and appropriate disclosures on these subjects.
Each listed company must have in place reliable procedures to identify and value its commitments and risks, and to ensure to its shareholders and investors that it provides them with the relevant information on these matters

Everyone knows what happened at the Société Générale a couple of months ago : see PwC Report and General Inspection Report

Why bankers that state they have relevant procedures would be trusted?
Why accounts certified by auditors that are not independent enough in a blatant way would be trusted?
Why accounts certified by auditors that disregarded risks and the prudence principle in a blatant way would be trusted?

The problem is that because of poor ethics there are neither principles nor rules except the rule of making money.

08:25 Posted in General | Permalink | Comments (0)

The comments are closed.